It's true......But was Jesus teaching something, or was he just hungry, angry and stressed? Perhaps a little strung out to start cursing a tree. It doesn't seem like a parable, it seems like Jesus really is hungry, angry and per chance a little freaked out.

I am normally a fan of Jesus, and he seems very human in this instance - which is quite refreshing. But I am unsure how this fits in with his usually demure and forgiving conduct.

JESUS REBUKED THE FIG AS AN EVIL ABOMINATION.
"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he was hungry.
"And when he saw a fig tree by the road, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
"And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon has the fig tree withered away!"
--Matthew 21:18-20

JESUS COMMANDED US NOT TO EAT OF THE CURSED FIG.
"The next day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find any thing on it: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
"And Jesus answered and said to it, No man eat fruit of you hereafter forever. And his disciples heard it.
--Mark 11:12-14

http://godhatesfigs.com/

I believe there are theological implications of this. At the very least, I think it is a metaphor that we as Christians should be bearing fruit, and if we are not, then are we fulfilling our purpose?

Though i believe I read something about the Fig-tree being a symbol of Israel. I'm not entirely sure of the imagery of this, so someone with more information on this particular topic might have better sources, but from what I have read in the past, the fig-tree's symbolic significance is as a representation of Israel. We could take this to then mean that Israel was not bearing fruit. Additionally, the point of concern is that "it was not the season for figs". The fig-tree could not have produced figs. This could further be a prophecy of Jesus' life, death and subsequent resurrection to be a signal of the end of Israel as God's chosen people (not being in season) and thus heralding the future that the Messiah has come for all people of all nations, no longer just for the Jews.

Just a thought to consider

Or it might just be an actual Fig Tree, PA.

He was on his way to Jerusalem at the time. He was possibly a little miffed due to forseeing the "Can produce bread and fish at demand out of thin air but can't get figs from a figtree" paradox arguments that would spring up (not to mention the "about to be crucified to fulfil the prophecy" thing).

Oh, I'm sure it was an actual figtree. I'm just saying I think there's a theological reason behind it (it's been my experience that this is the case for all miracles which Jesus did)

I'm sure if you try hard enough, you could attach religious significance to virtually any action. Sometimes, a Fig Tree is just a Fig Tree. Not everything that Jesus did has to have a deep symbolic religious meaning.

Good point.

Always thought of Jesus & his disciples just yip yapping about life on the mount while helping the local farmers pick Olives.

I'm going to have to go with Tiggs on this one PA. Theologically speaking, yes, Jesus was the Son of God. But as God Incarnate, Jesus was also man (all God, all Man), and as a man Jesus experienced the same emotions you and I and all other humans experience: laughter, love, anger, pain, suffering etc. etc. etc. My guess is that JC was just a little po'd when all he wanted was a fig and the tree couldn't do it for him.

I would have made a lousy disciple, 'cause I would have said, "Dude, you're God. Fig season is when you say it's fig season."

I started hating Fig Newtons when I found out that they contained wasp insects.

if you read the rest of the matthew one you will see that he did it to show his power to his apostles one more time. but he did get anger three times.

I did not know that ! yet most foods we eat contain some form of insect parts . as long as it's below a certain amount it's passed.

think of apple juice !!

Actually the mills in this country have no regulations what so ever.

truth is we don't know what Jesus said. since nothing original exists. or didn't you watch 'misquoting Jesus ' the lecture video post ? I think most skipped it .

I started to watch the video. However, the man speaking didn't seem to have a grasp of things such as oral tradition. The works were not just copied, but they were likely memorized verbatim.

Just a man trying to sell a book.

This part of the bible always got me. Hehehe I like it. I like its randomness. It shows how trippy religion is. It is almost Zen nonsensical the fig tree incident.

Actually, hes a very knowledgeable scholar WWF, he knows a lot about ancient texts and I would trust his word over any theologian when it comes to the bible. Besides, that 'oral tradition' stuff is BS, don't you remember as a kid playing 'telephone?' theres a lot that is lost in oral tradition, in fact, probably more is lost orally than what is lost that is written.

The point is we have to go by faith that Christ's teachings are verbatim. Hence what are his teachings may very well be completely not.

Oral tradition isn't like "playing telephone". You're being duped by a man trying to sell you a book.

In oral tradition writings, to include books like the Torah, were memorized verbatim. Letter for letter.

There's a difference between going around a room once while playing telephone and a person practicing Jewish Oral Tradition and going over the same line many times until it's perfected in their memory. They would've also put extra care in copying a Holy Book. They weren't doing random edit jobs.

I have to agree with you on this too...anyone can attach any religious significance to ANY old action..and say it must mean something elsse..its like a metaphore...but thats what I see when I look at a bible verse...never means what it says, always a darn metaphore, used to suit someone eles's needs!!

While I have to agree that Jewish scholars weren't being as careless as children playing telephone, I have to disagree with that last statement. We weren't there, therefore we cannot say ANYTHING concretely about what they did or did not do. We weren't there, so we wouldn't know.

P.S. I'd like to add the fact that texts DO change over time by being copied over and over again. Take Shakespeare's famous play Romeo and Juliet. The original text of the play is no longer in existence, and variations in text occur in almost every translation and variation of the tragedy. Take for instance a part of the play in Scene 5. Romeo is told by his page Balthazar that Juliet is dead and he is at the tomb ready to break in and see his love. In some texts Romeo goes in to take back the ring Juliet gave him, and in some texts Romeo goes in to give back the ring Juliet gave him. Which is which? Also, there are discrepancies about when Paris confronts Romeo in this last scene as well. Is he in the tomb, or is he outside of it? The point is, even after a few HUNDRED years, texts change so the original text is no longer there, and discrepancies arise, but the original meaning of the text is somewhat the same as the original. I'm sure people were just as adamant in trying to preserve the original text of Romeo and Juliet just as Jewish scholars were in preserving the Old Testament, but it's obvious that translations get changed and text is obscured. That's just a fact. NO text is immune from changes in translation. NONE.

Dr. H.L. Hastings said, " If this book, (the bible) had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried thier hand at it; they die and the book still lives. "
I believe that, yes, we do have the words of Jesus as He spoke them. A lot of people don't want to believe that. It might just make them feel condemned. But in reality, His words are very freeing.

Bugs are good for you they are high in protein and low in fat.

Alright WWF, then how do you explain the fact that we have thousands of copies of the same biblical books from antiquity, yet no two are exactly the same, even when written in the same language? They're all different.

It's interesting how Jesus rebuked one of his fathers creations. I suppose in a sense, it shows that Jesus had a darker side.

I have observed there are theological implications of everything in the Bible of course but like Tiggs said "Sometimes, a Fig Tree is just a Fig Tree." And if it isn't well aren't you sliding towards the whole thing being a myth? If everything is metaphorical and symbolic doesn't that say that the story just appeal to our nature as storytellers and learning lessons through symbols. Does it really matter then what truly happened? Have you learnt lessons despite the original occurrences? If they are good lessons that help you or society then I don't really have much against that to be honest.

If the "Fig Incident" helps somebody, somewhere make sense of the universe in some way - good for them.



I would have giggled and clapped my hands "Good show Jesus". But to me it is like someone kicking a coke machine when the can gets stuck. When you are angry and tired you are more likely to treat inanimate objects like they have some sort of human qualities and they are thwarting your needs. Interesting how he took the tree not having fruit as a personal insult, maybe he had a......... Messiah Complex! boom tish! (groan...couldn't resist)



Darker, I suppose to the way he is normally portrayed. But looking at it as him just being a man, just quite normal really.

I suppose you have a point there Belle. But, can it be concidered blasphemous when the son of God rebukes
one of his fathers creations? An interesting thought to say in the least...

Actually, I think you are right, I hadn't thought of that implication.

Ha ha ..........I can attest to that. My family for example. We have to leave notes to each other for everything, otherwise it's "you never said that"-" and you said this.....blah blah blah"

But, in a more logical sense, I would say you are right as well. Jesus was the messiah, but human just as we are,
so in a sense Jesus had a free will to think on his own. He was not exactly perfect.

Robbie, if i may, In the gospel 'Mark' uses narrative techniques common to the craft via the layout of this text and the strength of the apocalyptic beleifs combine to make them diagrammatic so that the starkness can hold up tthe rich complexity of reference.. the seeds of the tale are planted in the begining if you will..its important to understand that Mark is a narrative, a folktale with jesus as the hero of this legend......the healing miracles to the cursing the fig tree to finding it dead etc etc..is a narrative plot without which the tale may not of engaged the reader or twisted the story into a interesting read, it may of just been a dead tree that never took root produced fruit (figs) if you will ... For the time this was a rather sophisticated technique in writing.......


In academia we do not take this story as 'actaully' happened" no narrative actually happened... I hope this helps give a larger scope for you to consider........happy learning...

didn't have a grasp ?? your joking right ??? no one memorizes verbatim. no one. unless you have a photographic mind. and over time change in stories happen be it oral or copies. fact.

and it's not like he's the only one who knows these facts. It's only the general public as yourself and I who didn't for the most part - and that's why he wrote the book.

BS. your the one who is duped. various copies of the same text from the same period show errors , edits , inserts. !! your trying to keep something 'pristine ' that never was pristine to begin with. Your lying to yourself.

no we don't have the words as Jesus spoke them . you may want to believe we do , but we don't. --

for example - the story of the woman accused of adultry whom they wanted to stone and jesus said 'who amoung you is without sin cast the first stone ' ? never happened. it was inserted in the 10th century I believe. that's reality.

its fair to say Lady R.. that the NT is a fabulation...including the jesus lore...I myself am astounded at how much the NT is fabricated... i really had no idea when i started my religious studies courses......

i do understand from a beleivers stance you take it on faith but factual, historical,real.... it isn't ......

I only call something - factual & historical when it has some kind of evidence to back it up....the bible, .....didn't, to me it was just a book of stories, mostly metaphores where you try and make it fit your own ideas

If you've ever been to the theatre, you'll note that actors memorize like that all the time

"In academia"??? Appealling to the authority of academia may seem helpful to you, but I could also show people in academia (Professors, for example - and not just Theology Professors) who believe the Bible is true. I know you can provide those who believe it is not, but seriously, there is no consensus "in academia" on this. There is no "official stance" that must means Mark didn't actually happen.

While I certainly respect your view to believe as you do, but it is only your opinion that it is fabricated. Factual, historical reality it is, and yes, I take that on Faith - but it does not make it less factual for that. You can either agree or disagree. Obviously you will disagree with me, just as I have disagreed with you. I believe these events did happen, and thus are factual. You do not. taht's what it comes down to.

All the best,

Right many are basing all their beliefs in philosophy or textual criticism and then selecting certain conclusions from each to make appeals to authority. The fact is not everyone agrees with those conclusions, it is hardly a majority, with philosophy there are always opposing conclusions and it is not something one should consider as an exclusive truth. With textual criticism there are also various methods that some come to their conclusions and overall even when someone comes out with a body of work such as Ehrman it does not mean that it is instantly accepted throughout all of academia or that textual criticism somehow trumps the consensus of other scholars and historians, which Ehrman is not an historian per se.

We should always keep in mind the limitations of textual criticism regardless of which method is chosen.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

As for oral tradition it is true that the ancients and even many today go about a different way in memorization. Much of it has to do with association. Many children can recite vast amounts of the Qur'an as an example. Take away all the modern distractions and thought patterns and there is other ways of memorizing and even thinking.

"He was not exactly perfect. "

That is where you are wrong. He was. You will know one day.

First you must understand it was an opinion. To you Jesus was perfect in every respect of that word, and thats fine.
But, to me Jesus is a man written about in a book with many contradictory flaws, and therefor "to me" is not perfect.

ah and here is an area I know. yes they memorize marks and dialogs. but they only memorize it in pieces. there are outside cue's that hint to the next piece of dialog. Even those that have given performances for years can forget , stumble after giving those performances daily. there is the text they can go back to and study. nor do they remember it in whole for any great length.

now if one actor had to write our or recite the whole play themselves ??? couldn't do it. Even one man shows ....... mistakes and edits . it will differ in each play.

It's impossible for any oral tradition to remain whole , unchanging and intack for one person in a generation let alone many.

here's a good exercise . let's say 1 month for you to memorize the book of Luke. and then write it out by memory. then check it.

now try that with a text someone reads to you once - like a chapter of moby dick. .......... go home after an hour of them telling you and write it out and then compare what you've written to what they have read you . will it be exact ?????

of course not.

now imagine you take that text you've written about the chapter of Moby Dick , with it's mistakes and pass it on to be copied by 50 different people. none of those would be the same and none , including yours the same as the original oral version that was read to you.

Pa and clovis, you both say this without having studied the bible from a historical /academic or literary pov also , it is my understanding you both have taken this on assumption..

Pa you have said you beleive its really true jesus cursed a fig tree what makes you arrive at this consclusion based on what methodology ?? as a nb this is what interests me.. there is the beleivers posit I understand that but this is the skeptics side also it was you who said all posits are welcome, but are they????......

.I know its hard to hear , I have looked a the bible from many persepctives very seriously and I posit the NT in particular is not historical or real as in actually happened...it seems the favored words of most christians is you have taken it out of context or you can only understand the bible with the spirit...I think there is no limits on context or that you need a christian mindset to have some inside scoop on the bible the point of this book has its ambiguity ......and a non beleivers stance is just a valuable IMO......i think it encompasses alot of mindsets and you don't 'have to be a beleiver to see this.....
because i have this posit it should have no bearing on how you interpret the bible any further studies shared should enhance your faith not destroy it....I am not seeking to convert anyone i am sharing from my interests ....

what is ironic is you dont' bother to ask why i find the NT a fabulation????

.

again clovis this is a cut and paste as opposed to a real understanding of critcal analysis, because if you understood it you would not have chosen the cut and paste you did chose...

And if you want a boring novel that omits NO details then you cant go wrong with moby dick. hahahahahaha

Sheri, I am very interested in your pov. So I am gonna ask the question!!!! Why do you find the NT in particular is a fabulation?

After reading though the entire thread twice I noticed that no one addressed the title specifically.

Apparently, it's accepted that the Christian god is capable of hatred towards his own creation.

The Messiah was only coming to the Jews?



Interesting that you should mention that. Whenever you have time, I suggest you listen to This and then This


You don't necessarily have to listen to the first one. It's mostly setting up background. But the second does specifically address the "telephone" argument against the Oral Tradition.


The two lectures are both about 43 minutes long. If you don't trust me (because I put the direct link to the download) the site I got them from is here. It's the first two (Rational Approach to the Divine Origin or the Torah, and then the Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of the Oral Tradition.) The second one is the one that deals with the "telephone" argument, so you don't have to listen to the first one, but I recommend it.


Actually, every Orthodox Torah scroll (written in Hebrew) on the planet (in a synagogue) is exactly the same.

I have studied the Bible. I have studied its history, its purpose. But since converting, I do look at it from the mindset of one who believes (though for fun, sometimes I pretend I'm atheist and read the bible, though mostly my arguments ring hollow in my own head because I know there are answers to each and every one of the comments I make against my own belief). Have you ever truly looked at the Bible from the mindset of a believer, or always a skeptic? Just wondering.

My original point of contention was your appeal to authority in attributing a point of view to "academia". Academia is not a single entity, or a branch of study. It is an overarching term that refers to all form of Higher Learning (particularly towards Tertiary Institutions).

Good point. I don't necessarily think it "ironic" that I didn't ask, but I'll ask now - why do you think the New Testament is a fabulation?

No but he had to give them first shot at it.